Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 19:14:45 EDT
Rakesh: It is "one-sided Marxism" because it assumes that whatever capital wants, capital gets. Hence the presumption that when capitalism is in crisis the outcome in reference to the length of the working day can _only_ be a lengthening. It is one-sided also in the following because it presumes that reductions in the length of the working day -- and indeed "any reforms for the working class" -- can _only_ occur after the "seizure of power" by the working class. All of this is said with an air of inevitability -- indeed, the author claims that the following is "obvious" from Marx's critique. What should be obvious, though, is that within this framework there is no role _whatsoever_ for the working class to struggle for limited reforms and win. Hence, the class struggle is not a struggle at all -- the results are pre-determined and dictated by the will, actions, and structure of capital. Within this context, the working class is merely an object rather than a subject. That's why I indicated that I viewed it as an excellent example of one-side Marxism. In referring to it being one-sided, I was using -- I believe -- Michael L's understanding of what constitutes one-sided Marxism. He can correct me if I am mistaken, of course. In solidarity, Jerry > > http://en.internationalism.org/wr/285_longer_hours.html > > "Taking this critique [Marx's critique in _Capital_, JL] as a whole, it > > is obvious that any reforms for the working class, any reduction > > in the working day for example, can only henceforth come about > > after the seizure of power by the proletariat and as steps towards > > a fully communist society."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT